Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Review

Panasonic's Lumix DMC-GX7 is arguably the company's most enthusiast-focused mirrorless camera yet to hit the market. Back in 2011, Panasonic released the DMC-GX1 in a move to appease those who grew more and more disappointed as the promising GF-series got smaller and simpler, with fewer controls as the series progressed. The GX1, however, seemed like an interim move, adding minor enhancements to the original GF1 design and changing the badge, while fans watched as Sony's NEX-7 and the Olympus E-M5 offered more controls and sophisticated features, including built-in EVFs.

While few of the GX7's specifications stand out as innovative (aside, perhaps, from its built-in articulated electronic viewfinder), it's still comfortably the most enthusiast-orientated 'G' model, as well as the first to include in-body stabilization - key to shooting with non-native lenses. And beyond the headline specs it contains plenty of small tweaks and features sure to entice more advanced photographers.

Key specifications

16MP Live MOS sensor

In-body image stabilization

Flip-up, 1024 x 768 pixel (2.3M dot equivalent) electronic viewfinder

3-inch tilting LCD

Front and rear control dials

Magnesium-alloy frame

Built-in pop-up flash

3-level focus peaking

1/8000 second max shutter speed, 1/320th flash sync speed

Highlight and shadow curve adjustments

1080 video at 60p/60i/24p in MP4 or AVCHD format

Built-in Wi-Fi with NFC

It's hard to know whether to think of the GX7 as being a post-NEX-7 or a post-E-M5 camera - but to an extent that's the point: unlike the GX1, which appeared to be a rather-too-late, warmed-over GF1, the GX7 is a camera that has learned from the increasingly impressive cameras it will have to compete with.

Despite Panasonic producing an extensive range of image-stabilized lenses, the GX7 incorporates in-body stabilization. This will be a welcome move for anyone hoping to use either Olympus's Micro Four Thirds lenses, or legacy lenses via adapters. Combined the GX7's 'focus peaking' manual focus aid, it promises to make the GX7 one of the more capable options when it comes to shooting with adapted lenses.

The GX7 has a lot to offer keen photographers, including a maximum shutter speed of 1/8000 sec and a flash sync speed of 1/320 sec. The camera is also in unexpectedly exclusive company when it comes to offering a DSLR-like twin-dial control system. There are several mirrorless cameras with two control dials, but remarkably few that make it easy to simply set one to control aperture or shutter speed, and the other to control exposure compensation, which makes the semi-auto aperture and shutter priority modes enjoyable to shoot in.

Additional enthusiast-friendly features include tone curve adjustment, 3-level focus peaking, and a whopping seven customizable buttons. So is the GX7 the mirrorless camera that enthusiasts have been waiting for? Keep reading to find out.

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital
Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help
you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based
on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review
before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed
at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom
right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a
larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply
use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section
either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the
navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their
monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted)
PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make
out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale
blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should
be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally
A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2013 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

EVFs are like grips. Pretty individual in whether you like it or not. I can say that after using a Panasonic G3's EVF which made me literally *sick* to my stomach at times, I revolted against the idea of taking any EVF camera seriously. Eventually I got a cheap VF-3 for my E-PM2...this thing is almost B&W its color reproduction and resolution is garbage. Yet it does the job without ever making me feel sick. Have I bothered to figure out why there is a difference...not really, but I do know it doesn't effect different people the same way. I'm a bit hesitant when it comes to Panasonic EVFs now, but at the same time until I've tried it myself I can't say. The litmus test for me is to use an EVF while as a passenger in a moving vehicle.

Now three weeks into upgrading my G3 and GH2 combo to G6 and GX7. For some reason with both on the shelf I'm grabbing the GX7 90% of the time. When I had a GF1 I took it when I really needed small, but otherwise preferred my DSLR or the GH1 once I had it.

For personal shooting - frost-kissed flowers when I first wake up, something impulse and not a planned shoot, I'm finding the GX7 often wins out over my DSLR kit. Only when I know that pixel count will matter - studio work for fine art prints I know will be printed large - is the DSLR an instant winner.

Raw image quality is a real upgrade from my last m4/3 kit. Handling is really nice, I put a hand strap on and have a long strap waiting to go on but think that might never happen, the camera really handles - literally - superbly.

The only downers: that wifi button has intruded way too often. For some reason my Nikon shoe flash don't fire reliably where the one Panasonic shoe flash I have does.

@mister_roboto You know, you're right. What was I thinking? Micro 4/3rds sensors are garbage. There's absolutely no way or how that you can get a nice picture in any circumstances out of any camera that has one. The OP is right, you can only take great photos if you have a FF camera in your hand. Who is behind the camera taking the shot matters little.

I disagree with your original comment but I take back what I said about "mediocre photography skills". I get irritated at how people just dismiss excellent cameras flat out because the sensor is something less than a full-frame. But at the same time I did nothing to elevate the discourse regarding this topic by taking a cheap shot at you regarding your skills as a photographer. So, my sincere apologies. I will try to keep it more civil the next time.

Mr vapentaxuser, I see that you are one more of those that believ that only the FF system is the real deal. Now, look at a shot taken by a 645 medium format and the same shot with a FF system, and then, FF is the garbage you talk about. All sensor sizes have a positive and a negative side, and that 2 sides again depend only on your own point of view.

If your intention is a shot with a limited focal plane where shallow DOF is important, and this is something you can achieve wit super fast lenses as well on smaller sensors, FF has this ability given by the sensor size. The ability of full in dpth sharmpness is on the other side not given to it for the simple reason that we do not move the lens to the right level to do this.

We stick with the same lens/sensor distance ratio, as well in a small sensor APSC, a FF dslr, or any other system. Even in mirrorless we keep a certain ratio to match the same specs as with a dslr.

The result is an unmatched in depth sharpness when the sensor gets smaller, while shallower DOF occurs once you make it's surface bigger. A sensor in any size with the same pixel pitch will capture same detail and same resolution, and here it doesn't matter how big he is. A 12 mpix APSC is the same pitch and density as a 24 mpix FF, and once I look at my shots of D200 and see those of a 20 mpix Canon FF, I see the same resolution and smoothness with different DOF only.

The 4/3 sensor in 16 mpix has the same pitch and pixeldensity as the 24 mpix from Sony in APSC, and the shot he does is thus in the same quality, not in DOF, where you need a 0.95 Nokton lens to match what the APSC does with a 1.8 lens, or a FF with a 2.8.

Now, saying that all those sensors are garbage, is spreading garbage. There are enough samples and pictures all over the net to look at that prove the capacities of the 4/3 sensor in any way. FF is not the top of the iceberg, all depends of the goals you have.

So, saying that a smaller sensor is garbage, is stupid. A 1" sensor draws heavenly good, even a 1 1/7 sensor does, all depends of the circumstances in which you use it and for what goal. At decent size of 5 x 8 inches prints, you wont see that much difference, and here again, only DOF can give you an idea of what sensor could have been used. Some are sharper in capture at base, some are less sharp. As an example, the 24 mpix Sony APSC sensor of the NEX-7. This sensor is used in many cameras, 16 mpix 4/3 from OLY is a crop of it, in all Nikon Cameras it is used, in Pentax latest K3 it is used, but in none of all that cameras, except NEX and Oly mirrorless, this sensor draws real sharp. On the other side, mirrorless often struggle with aberrations, while dslr's do here a better job.

One can't have it all, but after all, none of all hat sytems are garbage. 4/3 has proven to make excellent shots, with or without vapenatxuser claiming it to be garbage.

One more point about the GX7. It has a setting for a "pinpoint" focusing target and it makes gaining focus on small subjects (eye of bird, etc.) a great deal easier than the large 'box' targets. Just a small point, but a very important one and one of the reasons that I purchase this camera.

I think it is well acknowledged. Panasonic was for years without question a top gun in contrast based focusing. Now it is starting to level up, but still take cameras like fuji x (I have one) and you would appreciate the panasonic speed.

The EVF seems to be a point of confusion for those who do not enjoy eye-level operation. I own this camera and can tell you that the EVF is perfectly fine and a lot better than having only the LCD to deal with in bright conditions. If I had it to do over again, I would purchase the GX7 again. It is leaps and bounds ahead of the other bodies (both Panasonic and Olympus) which I own.

I respect this review. which proves once again to me not to make a judgement on a new camera based on its specs alone when it is released, but rather to wait for a professional review like this one. btw, I was interested in this camera, not to buy it because am happy with my Em-5, yet interested to see the innovation trend taking a good direction.Hopefully this trend will continue with refinements and improvements, and in a few years I will upgrade to a better camera.

Some say the build quality on the GX7 is great ...some say it is cheap. I have never read so many conflicting remarks about the build of any other camera. I guess that it has to do with people's previous cameras, so it is all relative.

I have no doubt that the IQ of this camera is on par with the EM5 and even EM1, plus you get built in flash, IBIS ( one of my major reservations with pana bodies ), better ergonomics compared to EM5, the excellent pana manual focus options, electronic shutter, iDynamic, etc...yet I have held it in store along the Olympuses and can't help to think it does not have the same built quality as the Olys ,it feels lighter, the EVF is way not as good as the EM1's, and very subjectively I think it is maybe not ugly but completely without inspiration , ordinary looking, flat. As for me I would put down the extra 2 or 300 euros and get the EM1 instead.

I think with EM5 they prioritised the looks, thats why ergonomics were not so great. With EM1 they went for function, hence great ergonomics but some people dont like the look. Whatever still looks much better than those D-SLR BLOBS

Your 24 'likes' must have all been by DPR staff. If your post was sensible, then we should not ever read the scores or the awards given to cameras. Nor should DPR publish them!

Fact is they COMPLETELY scre*ed up the review and scoring for this camera, in a way almost never seen before in DPR reviews.

Also FACT is that readers look to these reviews and scores and awards to help them to make decisions about camera purchases. Suggesting we shouldn't.... good grief, maybe DPR staff should approach their management and suggest they publish a big headline that their reviews are no use to anybody and should be ignored and preferably not read. The bosses (and advertisers) would be most impressed.....

"I use all my Nikon AI-S lenses on my GX7 and GH2 with no problems at all. "

There are a few problems Jeff such as the focal length doubling fine for longer lenses not so good for wider.There is no AF , and the lenses are often significantly larger and heavier than the native options.

Of course the focal length is doubled. That comes with the territory. And yes, wide angles are sort of pointless, which is again, another given. But given the great selection of native M4/3 wide angles from various manufacturers (Panasonic, Olympus, SLR Magic and Voigtländer) and ultra-wides, like the 7-14mm, that's not an issue either.

As far as size and weight go, since my cameras weighs 10-12oz.±, vs. 2lbs.+, The size/weight of the body balance things out. The larger ones I only use with a tripod or monopod. For me, it's another non-issue. For others, of course it is.

The other point is that there are lenses, like long macros and fast prime telephotos that may never appear as native M4/3 lenses. For instance, even the Panasonic 150mm f2.8 is in limbo now, so, what's the solution? Switch systems? Wail about a lack of lenses? Or adapt… literally and figuratively. I prefer to adapt.

I checked out this camera the other day, I own a GH3, and an LX7, have owned the GH1 and 2 and G3, so I'm pretty good to go with Panny. I found it bigger than I hoped, found the EVF small and uncomfortable. If and when the cam drops to $500, maybe. With my Fuji Xpro and Sony Rx1 I would probably choose to carry around a GX7 if it was just a bit smaller and cheaper. How about EVF capabilities on the GM1?

I have been pining for breakthroughs in the M4/3rd sensors which looks like a couple of years off. I figured Panny or Oly may pull the AA filter off the sensor and offer us that config to tide us over until a completely new sensor. Now I remember that Panny always had problems with digital noise so with these sensors so I'm guessing that will not happen.

With the great small camera big sensor offerings out there from Fuji , Ricoh, Nikon and I'm sure others, if I was not a legacy Panny owner I would probably have little attraction to the GX7.

Even though DPR keeps saying that the rating is separate from the assessment. I have to say that it really taints the whole review, to the point where i dont bother with reading the review anymore. The "best in class" RX100v2 and now this one are perfect examples of the disconnect.

Back in the day, I used to read them front to back, even on cameras i had no intention of buying. But, now there are other sources. I wont bother reading this one.

I bet DPR gets more page hits (i.e. more ad revenue) from the comments section than the actual review.

You *could* ignore the ratings instead, and read the content. But if you're that happy to just skip the content, you probably never liked it much in the first place. I don't think the rating has a lot to do with if the review is read or not.

Sometime -- when -- IF? -- I get around to it, I can see dozens of menu items that may or may not come in handy. For now, the very basic and "photographic" parts of it just really work, and really work well.

The pictures, examined on the larger screen, simply impress and from long experience are what I bet are going to produce very beautiful prints, or any other end display.

I see it's traditional to include at least one whine, so here's a possible one. I'm a Photoshop user on a version a bit behind CC. Camera Raw can't "see" the RAW file version Panasonic has graced the GX7 with. This may actually be a blessing, since DNG Converter makes a good job and file sizes trimmed by 3-5MB each, of the native RAW files. So one extra step, for this workflow. YMMV. As they say.

The EVF feels and looks like a good SLR vewfinder and -- I know the nigglers who obsess on these things can tell me off -- the perception is of no delay in any of the process of taking a picture or looking at what you've done. At the moment of shutter release the EVF "blinks" dark, and so briefly it's only just preceptible. If I'm following a person walking across the street, the viewfinder image reappears so fast (really it's about like the dark interval using an SLR while the mirror is up, but, I'd wager, much shorter than that), and the lag is so minimal, that it is clear from what I see in the finder that the exposure happened when I hoped it would, and not...later. This last is confirmed if I shift my attention to my sly other eye squinting around the end of the camera.It's one very deep instrument.

Well, this will be 2 cents or a mere drop in a very large bucket. I am a GF1 fan and user, but the GX7 newly arrived is just so far beyond any (ANY) digital model I have ever used that I am simply overjoyed.

It sits in one's hand like a Leica -- or maybe like the OM-1 of yore. Controls are where they "should " be; almost from the first outing things seem to fall under my fingers without thinking about it.

The whole flow of taking pictures, being at the ready, and of the camera's overall quickness, make it a joy to use.

Then there is silent mode. There. I took a picture. Did you hear it? In fact, several.

Even I'm a bit surprised on the final score and rating with this one, and I usually agree with DPR's conclusions.

And I do mean a bit, not a lot- as in a sarcastic reply. To me I thought the GX7 would get a gold award by dpr staffers, seems to tick off a lot of what they like in a camera. No worries though, there might be some intangibles mixed in there too with that score.

Personally I think the GX7 is the best camera for m4/3 Panasonic has ever built.

From my use and discussing it with Jeff, I'd put it this way: the GX7 is really good, but not great. The tiling EVF is an interesting idea but if, like me, you're a bit sensitive to the field sequential LCD, then it's pretty much unusable (I'm going to check it against the G6, but it would be enough to stop me buying a GX7, personally). We didn't criticise it too hard for that, since not everyone notices/minds it.

The criticism of lack of stabilization for preview comes down to its intent - its inclusions, plus focus peaking should make this perfect for using old lenses on, but that's undermined by the lack of stabilization when you're trying to align your shots (there are also times that focus peaking only seems to highlight noise, so you end up using magnifies LV, where stabilization would really help).

The touchscreen interface is pretty good but it doesn't feel well integrated with the physical controls - there's massive and overwhelming redundancy...

...None of the above are devastating flaws. Overall it's a very good camera, with the best JPEG results we've yet seen from a Panasonic.

However, in use it never quite lives up to the promise it offers 'on paper' - the whole isn't quite the sum of the spec highlights. At which point, against some cameras that are really well worked-out, that's a Silver (which still means this camera is really good), not a Gold.

To an extent, if it had achieved this much a year and a half ago, it might have been a Gold. However, arriving 17 months after the E-M5, it doesn't push the bar any higher (and arguably isn't as coherent a camera), so just misses out.

As always, though, if your needs differ and the things that we were disappointed by don't matter to you, then you're welcome to reach a different conclusion - we just hope our work helped in drawing that conclusion.

To each his own. You do your job. And if you are particularly sensitive to field sequential EVFs, you have a personal point of view.But I don't see your score as fair - the GX7 seems "really well worked out" to me relative to the nits you have picked.

The numerical score is based on our testing - the concerns we had about the consistency of interface, lack of stabilized preview, etc, aren't factored into the score. They're only included in the award chosen by the reviewer.

It's not a perfect system or one that it's possible to make 100% objective but, having been party to its development, an awful lot of effort went into making it as fair and consistent as possible.

Looking at the finer grained scoring, the score is around 0.6% lower than the E-M5, which sounds about right to me.

Thanks for the reply Richard, I'm not surprised and it helps make more sense. For anyone who are negative about DPR's conclusion- they are absolutely entitled to it- why that is questioned on replies so often is beyond me.

To be surprised and mention it is one thing, to try and devalue their opinion or berate them, is intolerable to me. It's their opinion. We are all entitled to our own.

Richard, I have always respected DPR reviews, they were the one point of reference for me in the decision to buy a certain product or not. I know many camera dealers who link to DPreview when discussing camera specifics with customers. That is the more reason why I am not convinced this time. I feel your narrative in the review is balanced against the camera, can't help it.

While we are at that, would you consider to change the review in this point:

"The GX7's pop-up flash, which is released manually, has a guide number of 7 meters at ISO 200, which is typical for a camera in this class.

This flash cannot be used as a wireless 'master', though you can buy and attach an external flash that can serve that purpose."

This is objectively a false statement, the camera can indeed trigger wireless flash with the built-in pop up .

Thank you Richard or taking the time to explain more about the context of the award. As one of the first ones that posted about it, I want to make clear i wasn't particularly upset just confused - more so because of the reasons given at the end (the three reasons).

This makes more sense even if ultimately I may not quite totally agree but makes me think and reflect a bit. Thanks for taking the time. Appreciated.

"If it had achieved this much a year and a half ago, it might have been a Gold."

That's what's been bugging me. As great as it is, it kinda feels like it should have been launched a year ago, around the same time as the NEX-6 (probably its closest competitor). Tempting as the GX7 is, I can't help but wonder if by spring we'll see a 'NEX-6N' that blows it away. (It'll come sooner or later, of course, just a matter of when.)

Responding to HelloToe and R Butlers reply just above. He begins: "...None of the above are devastating flaws," and adds "it doesn't push the bar any higher."

That's the thing -- other cameras that have pushed the bar do have devastating flaws. The gx7 seems like an effort to bring polish, iQ, and usability into the complete package.

He references the e-m5 for achieving similar specs more than a year earlier. I'd rather have the same specs now, without the flaws: "Focus tracking distinctly unreliable ... Small controls sometimes awkward ... Several useful features hidden in obscure and confusingly-named menu options."

I guess if it doesn't have pdaf for tracking like em1, you can't mention it. It got one sentence that it may hunt during tracking. How is this a huge deal on some cameras and barely mentioned on others?

Once again, people have been personally offended and insulted by a review. ;-) The reviews contain a lot of useful information, regardless of the score given at the end. I know there are many other sites that have reviews, so rather than get upset about the score, I guess you could go look at another site that has a score you agree with? :-) I mean...if that makes you feel better. I've owned several cameras that didn't get a gold award here. So what? I liked them anyway.

Silver award...so what. For me the GX-7 is the small and capable camera I was waiting for (years). It is right in the sweet spot between bulk, image quality and usability as a photographic tool. I have this camrea since it was available in Germany and have to say, that I'm not disappointed. Only few reasons left to take out my FF DSLR equipment anymore. I must admit that I do stills only, so the missing microphone jack doesn't hurt.

Why isn't the very useful feature of "Moving the enlarged area" when manually focusing an image mentioned as a positive point? The review by DPR of the GX7 leaves me with a shallow taste , as if DPR was looking for reasons to downsize the merits of the camera .

Love the fact that manufacturers are wising-up and putting EVFs in, but these cameras end up so big, I might as well carry my Rebel- and my trusty Sony WX10 for awesome video, for plinking. Now IF it had a mic/ headphone jack...

So compared to the E-P5 the following is worth 1 point I take it? Congratulations DPR, you've outdone yourself once again.

* E-P5 is more expensive;* E-P5 has no EVF, requiring a $300 add-on;* E-P5 has a major fault: shuttershock;* E-P5 applies focus peaking as an art filter, which reduces the display frame rate, stops the use of other art filters, and is unusable in video (where it's essential);* E-P5's video quality is a mess with no 24/25/50/60p (no PAL frame rates);* E-P5 has no electronic shutter;* E-P5 wifi is only usable in iAuto mode (and unlike the GX7, no control of: WB, ISO, aperture/ss, exposure comp, focus mode, burst mode, bracketing, photo style, image quality, metering, flash mode, video quality and record options, stop animation, etc etc);* E-P5's time lapse is limited to 999 exposures and doesn't put the camera to sleep between shots;* E-P5 has no sweep panorama

Yes, like I said here a couple of times but a nice summary. Also: all lenses will work perfectly fine on a GX7 while Oly does not correct panasonic lenses to the same extend as Panny does. So this cam is more universal as both stablise lenzes.5-axis is all the EP5 seems to have left, unless I am forgetting something truely usefull.

I was a bit disappointed with the score given, and the reasons provided for the score. They seemed like severe nit picking to me. If a professor gave me this mark on a paper, I think I would be justified in asking him to take a second look.

I agree. They should stop doing the ratings if they aren't going to be consistent about them.

Just as one example -- they had lots of negative things to say about the X-M1 handling and use and positive things to say about the GX7 in this regard. Yet the scores show the reverse. Subjective reviews + scientific tests are great. But these scores are empty.

"We found this material to be a bit slippery, which doesn't give you a lot of confidence when you're holding the camera. ... Two other design-related things we weren't huge fans of include the very plasticky power switch / shutter release and the top control dial, which turns too easily and can result in accidental setting adjustment."

I take comfort in the fact that they didn't find any major problems with the GX7. After a few months of consideration, I can get this thing with confidence, sure it will be my camera for the next half-dozen years.

I'm at Ramstein Air for base in Germany. We have a mall and the guy that got me started was in (Chris has been shooting since the 60's) and he had the GX7. He let me handle this...gem. Fast AF, sharp, terric feel, ergonomically superb. Of course this is all personal but I can sum it up for you in one word...winner! I love the reviews on DP review but don't forget we all draw our own conclusions. You are upset it didn't get gold? Buy it and go out and take some award winning pics! The possibilites with this class of cameras (including the GH3 I received yesterday, the EM-1, EM-5, Sony A7/A7R are only limited by the photographer! People didn't like the GH2 (bad stills, just good for video) I have 9 IPA's HM's and 3 Spider Awards that beg to differ! Camera's are great but it comes down to the photographer. Love the GX7 and will (when money and Mama allow) get it.

I've owned dozens of cameras in my life from a Leica M6 to a current Nikon D4 and D800 and in my opinion this is one of the best cameras I've ever owned. Great picture, super fast focusing, great build, great layout and just feels wonderful in your hands. The silent mode is amazing. Love the WiFi and use it everyday to post to Instagram. I haven't enjoyed a camera this much since the old SX-70 days. This camera doesn't deserve a gold rating, it deserves a platinum rating. At a grand with a sharp lens it's a steal in todays market.

Page 1 of the review mentions "the semi-auto Av and Tv modes" of the GX7. Somehow I can't seem to find them on my cam... ;)

Like many previous posters I'm amazed that some relatively minor niggles are given so much weight in the final verdict. Attributing so much importance to features that will have little meaning for the crowd of enthousiasts that make up the target market for this camera, like iA mode or in-camera RAW processing, seems a bit unbalanced.

Although I liked the glorious big & clear EVF of my GX1 better, I find the EVF of the GX7 very useful and usable, even with my darn problem eyes. And for a left-eyer its tilting function is extremely useful.

Aperture priority and Shutter speed priority are sometimes called Av & Tv. And they're semi-automatic as you set one value and the camera the other value. I think that's what they mean.I suspect that they have to concentrate on minor niggles as we're approaching the point where all these cameras are very good and the minor niggles are all that separate them. And are of course relatively subjective.

"Aperture priority and Shutter speed priority are sometimes called Av & Tv" - yes, I know, in Canon land. But otherwise the usual indications are A and S for aperture priority and shutter speed priority.

And concentrating on minor niggles might be balanced by also concentrating on minor advantages, like the many points that are being mentioned in the comments on this page.

Nowadays even a high degree of customizability seems to be counted as a con - when we now can choose whether we want deal with our menus by buttons or by touch screen, that's called "massive and overwhelming redundancy"... My, am I glad I have this redundancy and I can choose to have my touch AF point and touch pad AF on screen and do ALL other settings by buttons! As glad as others probably will be to do everything on touch screen. Hurray for massive and overwhelming redundancy!

Canon, Nikon chose to have in-lenses stabilization system, while Sony has its IBIS. And like Canikon, Panasonic chose to have in-lenses stabilization system,too. Since when the lack of IBIS (or not efficient enough) prevent a camera from owning Gold Award?And lack of in-camera raw process? Seriously?

No in-body stabilisation means no stabilisation of video without OIS lenses.For me this is a real downer because there are some very good lenses without OIS, especially wide angles, which are NOT stabilized in video mode...I have to agree with DP here...

Martin0reg, the two approaches (stabilization in-lenses and in-body) have their pros and cons, and that is another story (and a long story). The point I want to makes is that the lack of IBIS (or not efficient IBIS) has never prevented a canon camera (or nikon, leica) from owning gold award. I just don't understand the reasons provided by DPR in their conclusion part. Don't get me wrong, I own both canon and M43 gears.

The same can be said for the E-M1 , e-pl5,e-pm2, GH3 RAW results are all but identical and there has been zero advance in high ISO. I am happy with my mFT cameras GH3/GX7 and will not consider updating them until there is an honest full stop advance in RAW high ISO+ DR

I think that sensor size should always be in the first page "Key specifications" list, and at the top of it, too. In my opinion if is more important than whether the sensor is Live CMOS, CCD, Backlit CMOS, or toast. Well, ok, maybe perhaps not more important that toast.

Andy: Of course sensor size doesn't tell image quality directly, but that was not my claim to begin with.Sensor size is a major feature of every digital camera.Not having sensor size in the "Key specification" list is especially frustrating with P&S cameras where sensor size can be 1/2.3", 1/1.8", 1/1.5", 1", or anything else. It gives a range of reasonable expectation for image quality, which then can be verified from the actual review.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:"The Live MOS sensor is a brand name of Image sensor used by Leica, Panasonic and Olympus in their Four Thirds System DSLR manufactured since 2006"So, can you tell the size from that definition?

@Henrik I don't really see what the issue is here, it's a Micro Four Thirds camera so the sensor size is implied, the sensor size is clearly listed near the top of the specs on the 2nd page and also very prominent on the overall camera listing pages. What benefit is there to repeating the sensor size again on the first page?

@jim stirling How about people in a hurry to get a picture? If I'm in manual mode but suddenly see something that requires completely different settings to capture and need to get a shot quickly I'll stick it in auto or program or auto mode to get it. Sensible aperture/shutter speed choice in automatic modes should be a solved problem in camera design by now!

In your review of the flash you stated :"This flash cannot be used as a wireless 'master', though you can buy and attach an external flash that can serve that purpose."That is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE ! The camera DOES control external flash units, there is a whole chapter in the manual titled "Setting the wireless flash".Obviously you did not read the manual.

One thing I learned here that I hadn't read elsewhere already was that frame rate goes up to 10fps with electronic shutter. That's definitely nice to know. Nice, also, to have the old noise test to compare the GX7 with older cameras that aren't included in the new studio scene database. Would be nice to see an exhaustive test of IBIS with various lenses across a wide range of shutter speeds. There are a lot of conflicting anecdotes out there about this.

Dear DPReview, please just tell me why the video score is the same with E-P5 & E-M1? Don't tell me it is because it doesn't have the mic input. Spec to spec this camera even blow out of the water the video spec of E-M1. Make comparison the video quality out of the box and tell us are they really equal, hence you giving the same score?

I did not see it, thx. This is absurd if true. Liek I said below: 1 point more than EP5 inspite of silent shutter, built in EVF, indeed much better video, same IQ, I think a better menu, I think much better ergonomics and last but not least: a much lower price. It is beyond me. If I want an EP5 with EVF of similar IQ, I need to add another 250 euro or so....And I am no panny fan: I have the EPl5 and like it a whole lot.

In addition, what is surprising is that in the EM1 review they conclude by “Disappointing video quality” while in the GX7 review they say in some of the comments “The video quality is impressive” but finally not even mention this as a Conclusion – Pros, and give same video performance level in their camera comparison tool.Not very consistent review as usual !

In fact, DPR just start deciding which award to give and then find which arguments they will use to qchieve their choice ! Not fair review definitely !

This focus on the EVF's "tearing" effect is ludicrous. Is if going to affect your photography 99% of the time? No!

So what’s the big deal? This is a reviewers' nitpick, something they are trying to hang their hat on because the camera is so darned good.

Where is the silent mode of the much lauded E-M5? How does it compare for size? What about its pop-up flash (reported here as flimsy -- ALL pop-up flashes of that type are flimsy, but it is way, way better than none at all!).

Then there is the nonsensical expectation that you should be able to see through the EVF with glasses. Come on!!! I've been photographing for 50 years with glasses, and I have NEVER had an eye level viewfinder that works with glasses! The glasses used to go into my pocket; nowadays, they!).

As for the necessity to have the optional eye cup for sans glasses viewfinding -- OF COURSE!! I have been using them on every camera I have had for 50 years. Literally.

No it does not require you to put off your glasses, unless you wear them very far down your nose, like some reading glases are worn.The tiltable EVF has some real advantage, as you can use it with just a little bit of tilt, which may provide a better and less conspicious appeareance while shooting and better ergonomics of neck position at that, and , because it's tiltable, it offers a GREAT advantage to left-eyed viewers. Finally, it is a fine aid when it comes to viewing in bright light conditions while shooting macro subjects.

Problems in opening samples and starting slide shows. Explorer 9: samples sites don't get opened at all. Firefox and Chrome: individual images can be opened but slide shows not. What to do? Thanks a'lot. BTW: Windows 7.

If this camera had existed a year ago, i probably would have got it instead of the Olympus OM-D EM5. I see Panasonic even fixed the awful dynamic range that used to bother me with the GH2 I had before. As it doesn't improve on the E-M5 in more than really tiny ways, and possibly the IBIS isn't as good (which remains to be seen), I'll stick to Olympus for now.

This is totally ludicrous. I have used it outside with no problems whatsoever. I was worried about the tearing issue but again have not experienced any issue when using the EVF. I do not wear glasses however and this may help.

I think the scoring is a slap in the face of those who appreciate things like a tiltable EVF (which can be used in bright light conditions better than the rear LCD) and can also improve life for those who due to physical limitations cannot really crouch, squat, bend like young children anymore; and an electronic silent shutter that is not available in most of the compared brands. A gold award was due, I believe I am not alone in that assumption.

Really, I am ever more convinced that dpr just hands those out in order to maximize page reloads as irate fangurls battle it out in the comments. Fine, whatever puts food on their tables is a-ok with me.

It's got IBIS and it's got an EVF which makes the camera far more useful than similar cameras that lack one or the other or both yet these have aspects of them listed in the cons?

IBIS is great and the fact you don't see a stabilised image from it is just how it works and how it has worked to the best of my knowledge on all IBIS based cameras including the Oly Pen cameras and it isn't listed as a con in the el p5 review so why here?

The EVF adds bulk? Well I have seen one of these cameras in the shops and its a very small camera regardless and it gives you the option of shooting in (to my mind) a far more natural way. External EVF's cost a lot and add even more bulk.

I liked the GX7 a LOT, despite mostly being an Oly user since I got into m43 a few years ago (I really liked the GF1, didn't much like the GH2 or G3, and haven't spent much time with a Pany since until the GX7). But the stabilized viewfinder is a pretty big deal with longer lenses. When I first used the EM5 with the 100-300, this was a revelation. The whole view calms down and lets you much more easily pick out a focus point and lock focus on it. Before this, working at extremely long focal lengths was often more bother than it was worth unless you were using a tripod and a relatively stationary subject. I never got how great BIF shooters did what they did. The EM5, EP5, and EM1 all have this feature and it's an awesome feature. And when I had a GX7 for a month, the lack of EVF stabilization was the one negative I immediately noticed and was bothered by. This is a pretty big deal with long lenses...